In yet another step down what could be a slippery slope toward an elaborate extralegal IP enforcement regime, several major Internet advertising networks announced an agreement this week on how they will treat "pirate sites." The good news: the "best practices" could be much much worse. The bad news: once again, Internet users weren't given a seat at the negotiating table.

Ad networks are brokers that connect those who want to advertise online with websites hoping to earn revenue by showing those ads. Though the ad networks are almost invisible to a person browsing the Web, they are a key source of revenue for large parts of the web, such as blogs and news sites. Major media companies and their mouthpieces have been clamoring for ad networks to keep websites that they consider to be "rogue sites" or "pirate sites" from earning ad revenue. The Internet blacklist bills SOPA and PIPA, which were defeated in Congress after massive protests last year, would have created several new methods to choke off that revenue. With the demise of Internet blacklist legislation in Congress, IP owners are turning to private agreements. No law requires ad networks to set up a process like this, but the encouragement of the White House carries an implied threat—create a takedown system "voluntarily" or more SOPA-like laws may follow.

In a nutshell, the ad networks will follow a process similar to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice and takedown scheme. The process itself is not unreasonable, at least on paper. Ad networks say they will require real evidence that the website is principally dedicated to infringing activity, with no substantial noninfringing uses, before they take action. Actions taken may include simply requesting the customer cease its allegedly infringing activity. In other words, an automatic chokehold is not required. The complaining copyright or trademark holder also has to show that they reached out to the site itself with a DMCA notice or cease and desist letter before asking the ad network to target the site.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary when private companies who control key Internet infrastructure work together (under heavy pressure from major IP owners and the US government) to set the rules about who gets to play and who doesn't. The DMCA takedown process is already abused to censor legitimate content. Entirely extralegal procedures make it harder to punish that kind of abuse. More generally, as with the Copyright Surveillance System, agreements like these are helping to create a web of private laws, without the checks and balances we expect from a real legal system, much less public input from the Internet users who will be affected by these private rules.

And here's the real kicker: this path can all-too-easily lead to a complex web of "voluntary" regulation. For decades, Congress has been giving content providers ever more draconian enforcement tools—but they have never been satisfied. That won't change just because the tools are "voluntary measures." Indeed, the Motion Picture Association of America is already complaining that the ad network best practices don't do nearly enough. You cannot appease these organizations.

EFF will be watching to see who has your back when it comes to "voluntary" IP enforcement, and who does not.

Related Updates

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbors are a vital protection for websites and Internet services of all sizes. But thanks to a new Copyright Office rule, website owners could lose safe harbor protections if they don’t register online by December 31. And that’s not all: Hollywood lobbyists are...

A photographer and a photo agency are teaming up to restart a legal war against online linking in the United States. When Internet users browse websites containing images, those images often are retrieved from third-parties, rather than the author of the website. Sometimes, unbeknownst to the website author, the linked...

It’s almost too strange to believe, but a federal court ruled earlier this year that copyright can be used to control access to parts of our state and federal laws—forcing people to pay a fee or sign a contract to read and share them. On behalf of Public.Resource.Org...

There’s a bill in the California Assembly that we think would make postsecondary education more expensive for students. Not only that: we think that it would undermine students’ right to make fair uses of educational materials. To make matters worse, several states around the country appear to be considering similar...

Update 5:00pm: Zillow has released a statement saying the company has "decided against moving forward with legal action." EFF is pleased that Zillow has withdrawn its threat and won't be seeking to take down any of the posts on McMansion Hell. We hope that other companies seeking to shut...

Mandatory Filtering Proposals Curb CompetitionWhen looking at a proposed policy regulating Internet businesses, here’s a good question to ask yourself: would this bar new companies from competing with the current big players? Google will probably be fine, but what about the next Google?In the past few years, some large movie...

EFF, joined by Public Knowledge, filed an amicus brief today asking the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to revisit one of its worst decisions ever. Three years ago this month, in Oracle v. Google, the Federal Circuit held that the Java Application Programming Interfaces...